Out My Window

The Admiral Panteleev (destroyer) swiftly swooped in on a boat and hauled in 29 men and their firearms on Tuesday at 14:12 GMT. According to the defense ministry this made it the largest pirate catch to date.

The ministry said "Seven Kalachnikov machine-guns, handguns of different calibres, equipment including satellite navigation devices and a large number of empty shells were discovered on board the boat."

I bet they won't get a free New York vacation with a lengthy trial that they can sell book rights to.
Way to go, Captain!

After some raised eye brows about my post on Obama's fascination with Lincoln and how Lincoln is hailed as the one to free the slaves, I thought I would qualify some of my statements.

First: I stand by the fact that he DID NOT free any slaves. He did make a proclamation that the slaves of the states that were in arms against the Union, were to be considered free. It should be noted that he did not free any slaves in the Union and he did not have the legal authority to enforce his proclamation in the South.
Lincoln had always said, even after the war, that if he could have saved the Union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so.

Secondly: His administration could more so be compared to Bush's when it comes to some of his policies and tactics than to anything Obama has promised.
Like Bush , Lincoln also bent the Constitution and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. He had Federal troops arrest over 1,300 citizens in the Northern States including hundreds of newspaper editors that were critical of his administration. Civilians arrested by military authorities. No trials... no due process. Lincoln’s military became quite proficient at torturing Northern civilians who had been arbitrarily arrested without a warrant.

"Handcuffs and hanging by the wrists were rare, but in the summer of 1863, the army had developed a water torture that came to be used routinely."

Of course the modern history books depict this not as unconstitutional but merely "out of keeping with the normal tenor of American law." The arrest ordered by Lincoln was "with the best of motives."

I am sure he had best of intentions when he arrested 300 Santee Sioux Indian bystanders after a skirmish with a war party and had them prosecuted and sentenced to death in a trial that lasted ten minutes. Lincoln feared that the mass deaths of three hundred civilians would tend to sway foreign countries to be sympathetic to the South, so he commuted the deaths down to just 39. Still the largest mass execution ever held. (and as an added note, there were no weapons of mass destruction found on any of them)

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's. Read what people of the era was saying about the times and the war. There are too many good resources out there that sheds true light on the "federal/state readjustment" to take my word for it.

It is a shame that the government has to make us do something that is healthy for us but it is their job, after all. To keep us safe, even if it is from ourselves.
Every day brings us new laws to protect the lungs of non-smokers. It is now against the law to smoke in a car that has an under-18 passenger. Most restaurants are strictly no smoking because the regulations to have a smoking section is too costly. Bar owners are waiting on federal and state legislation that will put them out of business as some city laws have done.

I don't dispute for a second that smoking is bad for you, I am just reminiscing about the days when smoking was good for you and good for the government. I hold no ill will toward the activist who have struggled for one reason or another to better the health of this and the next generation. It is an admirable calling.

But let us look at something else for just one second...
If you don't want your kids to do drugs, you don't lie to them about the drugs! When you lie or mislead the public, you lose your creditability. If you want a good laugh, just go have a look at the anti marijuana campaigns from the past.

Now I want to explore the recent taxes levied on cigarettes to the tune of two dollars a pack.
So, the majority think it is okay that the government does this. It is like taxing evil. Right?

If the government is getting more tax money from cigarettes, then shouldn't we get a break on other taxes? No. We are told the money goes to cover the health care burden of smokers. A cost, we are told, that ranges around $100 billion a year. Sounds good doesn't it? Smokers should bear the burden of added health cost. I am still a little unsure who is footing these bills. Is it the insurance companies and the cost passed back to the policy holders? In that case, how are we benefiting from the taxes?

This is what brings us to the part where we are being misled.
We all know that smoking is unhealthy. Government statistics prove this. The same statistics show that smokers die on an average of 10 years earlier than non-smokers. They also show that it cost the government more to care for the extra ten years of health care for non-smokers than the cost of smoking related health problems.
The Surgeon General directed agencies to not mention this fact back in 2004 when they imposed the first outrageous "Sin Tax" on cigarettes.
The truth is that the government reaps a net cost SAVINGS of 32 cents for every pack of cigarettes smoked.
A paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

Now we are facing legislation to turn tobacco sales over to the FDA for regulation. Supporters of this bill are once again citing the cost of health for smokers as a reason for this change.

So if it is the Governments intention to destroy the tobacco industry and make us all quit smoking, so be it. They should just say so and do it. We would all have a better quality of life.
But don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining!